I am boycotting The Hobbit. Three movies for a book that takes about 4 hours to read!?!

Early reviews for the first installment - a three hour movie that barely gets 100 pages into the book - confirm my fearsthat what should be a quick, cool romp through Middle Earth is a drawn out snoozefest, that may or may not cause motionsickness.

Riley12 wrote:Three movies for a book that takes about 4 hours to read!?!

That has me seriously worried, but so far the trailers have looked so much like the LOTR trilogy that it just might work. The thought of six epic movies on this story instead of just four overrides my worries. For now. Jackson has shown to be masterful in the telling of this story. I think he has a good chance to continue the magic, even if I'm worried about the scope of the story becoming too much.

"The ultimate number is W's, and that’s what matters in Santa Clara. As such, Jed York does not own the 49ers; Russell Wilson does." - Paul Gutierrez

Riley12 wrote:Three movies for a book that takes about 4 hours to read!?!

That has me seriously worried, but so far the trailers have looked so much like the LOTR trilogy that it just might work. The thought of six epic movies on this story instead of just four overrides my worries. For now. Jackson has shown to be masterful in the telling of this story. I think he has a good chance to continue the magic, even if I'm worried about the scope of the story becoming too much.

The second movie, from what I understand, basically finishes the Hobbit's story (i.e the Smaug orderal), while the 3rd movie is based on the appendices from Return of the King and connects the Hobbit to Fellowship. I have faith in Jackson on this.

They are tieing a lot of the background that was going on from the Simirrillion (spelling) into the Hobbit story. In fact Tolkien in his narrative in putting that together ahd stated that it was written to set things in order so that readers could understand the bigger picture going into the the Lord of the Rings. Jackson is just incorperating them into the Hobbit storyline for depth and reference to what we as viewers already know from seeing the LOTR and how it led up to it.

The Hobbit therefore will not follow the page by page events that happened in the book due to this which may upset some people. It is a precursor to LOTR not the stand alone book we read I think.

To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!! Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. Member of the 38 club.

PlinytheCenter wrote:References to the Silmarillion...awesome!! I want to see Feanor and more about the First Age! Some battles with Melkor! I am supremely nerdy

I doubt we see much of this. I WOULD however like them to make a Children of Hurin-era movie. Maybe starting off with the Dagor Bragolach all the way up to Earendil's voyage. I guess they could do another three-parter. Get Luthien and Beren in there, the Narn I chin hurin and I guess start off with Feanor and the Kinslaying and such. Could be amazing, but I think only the hardcore Tolkien nerds would go see it.

I saw it and really enjoyed it, but one thing bothered me the entire movie. All the dwarves had some work done in make-up, some almost excessively, but one, Kili I think, had none done and he looked just like a normal dude. I have only read the book once, but was there a reason for this?

I liked it, but it does piss me off they are milking that cash cow for three movies. Even two is pushing iut, but having tseen this one last night, I think I'd be OK with two, but three is really just cinematic robbery. Luckily my mom is a hug fan so she takes me. I won't give them one dime of my money (perhaps for one film, but not three, no way). LOTR, yeah, but this really stinks of profiteering IMO.

That said though, it is a thoroughly entertaining film and I love the way you get more of an idea about the dwarves, something pretty much non existent in LOTR, save for the mines of Moria.

This movie was awesome! Halfway through it I couldn't help but think I wasn't doing enough to help them kill orcs. Then I remembered that none of that is real life. Movies like this bum me out, because now I'm jacked up for the next one...but, that won't be for years.

SouthSoundHawk wrote:This movie was awesome! Halfway through it I couldn't help but think I wasn't doing enough to help them kill orcs. Then I remembered that none of that is real life. Movies like this bum me out, because now I'm jacked up for the next one...but, that won't be for years.

Year, not years. And I'm pretty sure the third one is being released in July of 2014.

SouthSoundHawk wrote:This movie was awesome! Halfway through it I couldn't help but think I wasn't doing enough to help them kill orcs. Then I remembered that none of that is real life. Movies like this bum me out, because now I'm jacked up for the next one...but, that won't be for years.

Incidentally that's what my wife thought about the original LOTR, when she found out it was a three-book series. We saw the first one, and then the preview for the second, coming out the next year. She about flipped pure wiggy.

"Well, that ended weird."

"Of course it did," I said. "That's the end of the first book."

"The FIRST book?"

"Well, yea. The next one will come out next year, and the final one the year after that."

"Wha-wha-what? I have to wait a gorram year for the next movie?"

No, she was not pleased at all. She's equally displeased there are three movies she'll have to wait for with The Hobbit, but we're going to see it anyway.

"The ultimate number is W's, and that’s what matters in Santa Clara. As such, Jed York does not own the 49ers; Russell Wilson does." - Paul Gutierrez

I liked it a lot. It's not on the same grand scale as the first trilogy but it kept me very entertained for the ~ 3 hours. Visually it blows most movies out of the water. I haven't read the book in awhile so I can't say what places dragged out too long but I think it does start out slow and they might have added too much fluff. It does have a more realistic battle sense though, aside from the goblins which was pretty epic. I'm curious as to how they plan on making it a trilogy....seems like the second will pick right up and 3 hours is plenty of time to get to the end of the story. Maybe he will use the third to connect big players from the Hobbit into The Fellowship?

Well, saw it this afternoon, and was overall impressed. I'd say about an 8.5/10 for me. Storyline and tie-ins to LOTR and related material was 10/10 outstanding. Characters and dialog were about a 7/10 for the over-the-top slapstick and too-modern dialog.

I thought it held up overall pretty well to the LOTR series, and will finish on equal footing with it. The nice thing about it is that it appears so far to be a pair of series which one can watch one or the other first and get pretty much the same bang for the buck. It's set up well as a sequel series to the LOTR, but also works well as a prequel. Nicely done there.

The schtick was a bit heavy at times. Snappy comeback dialog, over-the-top slapstick, and defying the laws of science, physics and gravity at times certainly detracted, but they did as well at points in the LOTR. I'll live with that to get an excellent story told exceptionally well pretty much any day of the year.

"The ultimate number is W's, and that’s what matters in Santa Clara. As such, Jed York does not own the 49ers; Russell Wilson does." - Paul Gutierrez

I thought it was outstanding, and far better than the book. For Lord of the Rings, I think Jackson took an A+ book and made it into three solid B movies. For Hobbit (part I at least) I think he took a B- book and made it into a solid A movie. Loved the changes to the Dwarves' motivations, attitudes, etc. They made the quest seem so much less casual and small-minded.

Also Gandalf kicking ass... yes...

I think they took Radagast just a little too far in terms of weird and quirky, but I still loved him. Sleigh pulled by rabbits? Yup.

Sign me up for two more of these. My expectations were very low. I think the book is just not good because of its tone and weird pacing and Jackson made it into a good movie.

I liked the way Peter Jackson is tying the Hobbit into the larger world of Lord of the Rings, but I can see how that would be a major turn off for others.

After the pretty good set up with Erebor, Smaug, and the dwarf kingdom, the movie then takes far too long to launch into the Hobbit. Overall, the pacing of the first half needed work. (Some of sub plots might pay off in later movies, such as the scenes with Radagast...I hope.)

The second half was very enjoyable, and the scene with Gollum and Bilbo was sublime. Very tense.

Movie varied wildly between comical and 'kid-like' (since the Hobbit is, essentially, a child's book) and Lord of the Rings epic minded. It worked at times and not at others. (I'm torn on the goblin-king death, for instance.) Though it needed more consistency, there.

Really liked Martin Freeman as Bilbo. He does the bewildered Englishman thing as his main schtick, but he does it damn well, and he grew as a character throughout the movie.

Overall, I liked it, and would give it about a 7/10.

Oh, and Gandalf looked really old and tired in this one. Would've expected a more spry Mithrandir.

It was slow at times and silly at times and I hope they are able to pull off the "prequel trilogy" (both how it ties in with LOTR and making a relatively short story into 3 long movies) aspect but overall I really enjoyed it, as I did the book. Seen it twice already, probably will a third time just to be thorough, and can't wait for the next one!

I saw it last night (3d version) and felt it was pretty good. The pace was a little faster than LoTR, but overall I felt it was a solid film. Nothing spectacular, but pretty good in general. I'll be looking forward to the next.

Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro

Yeah, i think all of the comments here are valid. The pacing was a little uneven, but overall it was very good. freeman is remarkably good as Bilbo, just as he was when he played Arthur Dent. I thought there was a fairly decent mix of light-hearted moments and serious moments. Not sure if I dig the Thorin character or not. Will just have to see the rest of the movies. I think the darker tone than the book is definitely working, and I appreciate all of the meta-references (like Gandalf saying he can't remember the blue Wizards' names, lolz).